On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 11:44 -0700, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Could the chairs please clarify how the proposed process
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
>
> satisfies the requirements of:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#formal-address
[[
3.3.3 Formally Addressing an Issue
In the context of this document, a group has formally addressed an issue
when it has sent a public, substantive response to the reviewer who
raised the issue.
]]
This is satisfied by step 2 (verified in step 3) and step 7.a.
[[
A substantive response is expected to include rationale for decisions
(e.g., a technical explanation, a pointer to charter scope, or a pointer
to a requirements document). The adequacy of a response is measured
against what a W3C reviewer would generally consider to be technically
sound.
]]
Ditto, step 2, and step 7.a.
[[
If a group believes that a reviewer's comments result from a
misunderstanding, the group SHOULD seek clarification before reaching a
decision.
]]
This could happen between step 1 and step 2, in step 5.d, or within step
6.
[[
As a courtesy, both Chairs and reviewers SHOULD set expectations for the
schedule of responses and acknowledgments.
]]
There is no specific provision for that in the HTML WG decision process.
Issues will be dealt with as they come.
[[
The group SHOULD reply to a reviewer's initial comments in a timely
manner.
]]
Again, no specific provision for that. The Group will do its bests. The
expectation is that all issues will be formally addressed before moving
out of LC. It is possible that an estimate can be given if requested by
the commenter.
[[
The group SHOULD set a time limit for acknowledgment by a reviewer of
the group's substantive response; a reviewer cannot block a group's
progress. It is common for a reviewer to require a week or more to
acknowledge and comment on a substantive response. The group's
responsibility to respond to reviewers does not end once a reasonable
amount of time has elapsed. However, reviewers SHOULD realize that their
comments will carry less weight if not sent to the group in a timely
manner.
]]
This is left undefined in the current draft. Step 2 doesn't have the
boilerplate statement that will advise the commenter. The expectation
here would be to have a timeout (2 weeks is acceptable in general).
[[
Substantive responses SHOULD be recorded.
]]
This should happen in step 3, step 7.a, 7.b, step 8, and step 9.
[[
The group SHOULD maintain an accurate summary of all substantive issues
and responses to them (e.g., in the form of an issues list with links to
mailing list archives).
]]
That will be part of bugzilla and tracker.
Philippe